Hiring FreeBSD

By Ed Hurst | Posted at 5:50 AM

It's nothing personal, you see. Human Resource (HR) directors don't hire people; actually, they hire skill sets. Naturally, that skill set includes the ability to get along, a skill even the most evil sociopath can learn. It's not how good someone is, but whether they exhibit a certain ability to perform. It's strictly dollars for a product, even if that product is a complex of human interaction. If you could get a robot to do the job for less money, the robot would be used.

At least, that's the theory. Naturally, there's a bit of politics and prejudice involved. Much as we try to automate the process of selection, it still boils down to the man or woman who makes the hiring decision. Some are better than others at ignoring their personal feelings, setting aside their prejudices, making a decision on purely rational grounds. In the end, all the skills, certifications, expertise and experience in the world won't help you if there's something in your human behavior which grates on the nerves of the hiring officer. That's just human nature.

At the same time, it seems nothing is more politicized and convoluted as purchasing equipment. All the more so when the equipment is computers, and the purchase involves selecting an operating system. Most of the Information Technology (IT) folks I've interviewed operate from fear, powerful emotions for what should be a decision more completely based on cold logic than any other. Never mind the propaganda about Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), because anybody can tweak those numbers to say what they want them to say. Mention moving off the 100% vertical MicroSoft standard, and you'll get a whole gamut of emotional reactions, including fear, arrogance, dismissive laughter, revulsion, and so on.

So let's look at from HR perspective for just a moment, and consider who's the best employee for the job? Let me introduce you to FreeBSD.

Anyone who's ever heard of FreeBSD is likely to have heard also it's famous for performance. In computer terms, that's a reference to quick response under load, among other things. Pile on the network tasks, and you can be sure FreeBSD will get more done with less hardware than most operating systems. Part of the reason is the ease with which you can optimize the system for the specific hardware on which it's running. It also tends to have a simpler structure, which means less overhead. Until the support for the 4.x series is finally ended later this year, you will discover the basic FreeBSD system can be installed using as little as 32MB of hardware RAM, which is enough to let you run the mailserver, too.

Along with that is the famous resistance to attack. Sure, you could use OpenBSD, which is just about uncrackable, but it also offers fewer choices in applications and supports a somewhat smaller set of hardware options. It's also a lot tougher to learn. The advantage of FreeBSD is retaining nearly the same level of security, but much more versatile. Depending on the nature of tasking, it also works fine on the workstation as a desktop OS. It's not really so difficult to learn, nor to train others to use as a workstation, and can be really quite hard for even savvy users to break. Common network threats simply have no effect, since viruses, spyware and other malware won't run on it.

I'll be one of the first to tell you FreeBSD's cousin, Linux, usually works better on newer hardware, and on a slightly larger set of hardware. Frankly, there are ways in which Linux works better, more completely exploiting the features of that hardware. However, Linux is not a single OS. There are some 50+ mainstream versions of Linux (known as "distributions") and many are quite different from each other. Almost all are mutually incompatible for most things. This offers choice, and that's a good thing in itself. It's also pretty chaotic for someone who isn't in the know, so there's a downside, too. The busy SOHO computer user may not have time to evaluate the whole field. FreeBSD users as a community are fewer in number, and have an image of being just a little bit more elitist. However, there is only one FreeBSD. When and where it works, it tends to work extremely well.

FreeBSD is slightly more secure than Linux, and somewhat more stable, as a whole. Because it is rather more simple in design and operation, it has gained the reputation of failing only when the hardware does. For a company of any size, FreeBSD shines if your hardware is good quality, but a couple years old. Once you have climbed that initial learning curve, gone through the time and effort to optimize to your hardware, you can expect it to just work for a very long time. Yes, all computer software requires updates, but FreeBSD has a fairly simple procedure for it. Internal failsafes are numerous; it's loaded with recovery methods which have been successfully employed by relative newcomers. A collection of short HOWTOs are already available here at Open for Business.

Nobody will deny Windows is a better at some things. It shines in printing with cheaper printers, tends to print fonts more cleanly, usually has better drivers for just about any piece of hardware, and has more desktop applications and suites. On the other hand, it's the world's favorite target for viruses, trojans, spyware and any other malware you can imagine. It consumes a great deal of overhead running protective software. On those occasions it doesn't like the hardware combination, there's nothing you can do. While it's convenient having a great many decisions are made for you, too often there's no way around that tendency. Use any search engine; it won't take long to find other reasons Windows might not be right, not least of which is the price.

FreeBSD isn't the answer to everything. However, you'll find it's one employee which can stir passion by virtue of tenacious faithful reliability. You owe it to your bottom line to consider whether FreeBSD can work for you.

Ed Hurst is Associate Editor of Open for Business. Ed operates a computer ministry in Oklahoma City. He loves computers, runs FreeBSD and GNU/Linux and reads all sorts of things. You can reach Ed at ehurst@ofb.biz.


Join the Conversation

7 comments posted so far.

Re: Hiring FreeBSD

Ed, I don’t think you’ve ever tried to use OpenBSD, much less read it’s documentation - or you’d not have said, “it also offers fewer choices in applications and supports a somewhat smaller set of hardware options.” Since OpenBSD supports more hardware than FreeBSD, what hardware it is lacking in support for is mostly undocumented hardware, which does not allow for the specifications of how the hardware works to be obtained in order to develop drivers for it. OpenBSD supports some i386 hardware which FreeBSD completely lacks and vice versa, it is not a simple matter of FreeBSD > OpenBSD. OpenBSD runs on more platforms than FreeBSD, last I checked I could not run it on my Zaurus.

Also, “[OpenBSD]’s also a lot tougher to learn.” Not true at all, the tools are almost all the same. OpenBSD’s documentation is even of better quality than those of FreeBSD’s, when I run FreeBSD I use OpenBSD manuals.

“…You could use OpenBSD, which is just about uncrackable… …The advantage of FreeBSD is retaining nearly the same level of security, but much more versatile.” The security enhancements in OpenBSD, while impressive are not anywhere near uncrackable, a misconfigured system could easily be comprimised - there is no such thing as nearly uncrackable, the randomization in almost all systems possible does significantly decrease the ability to crack the system, instead resulting in denial of service more often than anything, but there is no silver bullet. FreeBSD lacks all of the randomization work which helps to make OpenBSD so secure, it also lacks the stack smashing and the significant usage of chroot and privilege seperation.

Posted by Nat - Oct 27, 2006 | 11:49 AM

Re: Hiring FreeBSD

I have been experimenting for the past year with a few distributions of Linux and only went back to XP recently for the purpose of hardware recognition of my wireless network adapter on a Toshiba Satellite 1905-S301 and for the ability to control link speed between routers at my home and at my office.

I began reading comments from Dru Lavigne about FreeBSD. As a result, I am quite anxious to set up a BSD system. Nat… you make some interesting comments about OpenBSD.

Even though I am using XP, I am still using Open Office products, but need to remove Open Office and return to MS Office or return to another OS due to operating problems with Open Office in a Windows environment.

I use my laptop for heavy spreadsheet applications, word processing secondarily, and ecommerce/eportal via web applications thirdly.

I use the IE emulation capability in Firefox for accessing one of my vendors. I recognize that Firefox does not support this function in Linux. I don’t know about BSD.

What are your thoughts regarding the BSD variants?

Thank you.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Bolay - Oct 30, 2006 | 9:54 PM

Re: Hiring FreeBSD

So, Nat, write a counter proposal for OpenBSD. We’ll be glad to post it. You don’t have to be a writer; we’ll make it more presentable if you wish.

As for my experience with OpenBSD, my comments come from reading the documentation, particularly the installation. I found it much more difficult from the SOHO perspective. I am quite certain the FreeBSD ports collection is bigger than the one for OpenBSD. As for hardware options (I didn’t say which supports more or less hardware), that’s a reference to such things as FreeBSD has a VESA console, something not offered last time I checked OpenBSD. It’s one example of something which matters to me.

Posted by Ed Hurst - Oct 31, 2006 | 2:01 AM

Re: Hiring FreeBSD

Dennis - You should check out the User Agent Switcher extension for Firefox, found here:

http://chrispederick.com/work/useragentswitcher/

It does what you want as far as faking IE (or any browser really).

Posted by Eric Anderson - Nov 02, 2006 | 3:50 PM

Re: Hiring FreeBSD

Maybe this human ressources guy didn’t look far enough to find NetBSD? Too bad for him. :-)

  • Hubert
Posted by Hubert Feyrer - Nov 09, 2006 | 5:48 PM

Re: Hiring FreeBSD

NetBSD rocks!!

And it REALLY runs on a toaster, check NetBSD’s homepage. I’ve learnt a lot about UN*X like OS internals by trying to tweak NetBSD, actually I find it easier to compile a custom NetBSD kernel than a FreeBSD’s.

I recommend both OS’s.

Posted by Fabs - Nov 09, 2006 | 6:22 PM

Re: Hiring FreeBSD

Ed, I liked the first 3 paragraphs of your article.

About your digression on OpenBSD, being frank and earnest, that was an wasted opportunity to remain silent as exposed in the first comment about your article, by “Nat”.

I found very disappointing to realize your condescending attitude, towards “Nat”, expressed through your sentence: “So, Nat, write a counter proposal for OpenBSD. We’ll be glad to post it. You don’t have to be a writer; we’ll make it more presentable if you wish.”

After that unnecessary humiliation, I was not impressed by your contradiction when you claimed, in your answer to “Nat”: “I didn’t say which supports more or less hardware”. Of course you said which supports more or less hardware, because, reading what you wrote: “Sure, you could use OpenBSD, which is just about uncrackable, but it also offers fewer choices in applications and supports a somewhat smaller set of hardware options.” So, if you didn’t say that, well, I gotta go back to re-learn English.

Anyway, as I said, I liked the first 3 paragraphs. They are inspiring, and I really meant it.

Cheers

Posted by domecq - Dec 09, 2006 | 2:36 AM